app-preferences_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It uses the word 'safe' which implies no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, does not mutate data, or what output format is returned. It also does not clarify what 'high-level' means operationally, leaving agents with incomplete expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence with five words, which is very concise and front-loaded. It contains no fluff or repetition. However, its extreme brevity leaves key information about the exact scope of 'preferences' unstated, but as a concise statement it is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what preferences are included (e.g., themes, units, shortcuts) and what 'safe' means (e.g., read-only guarantee). The description is too vague for an agent to reliably know what to get or how to interpret results, especially given the large sibling toolset that may have overlapping functionality.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description's brevity is acceptable here because there are no inputs to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('user preference values') with a qualifier ('safe high-level'), clearly indicating it's a read-only query for preferences. It distinguishes from the sibling 'app-preferences_save' which is clearly a write operation, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus others. The description implies it is for reading preferences, but it does not mention prerequisites, context, or alternatives. The sibling list includes save, but no mention of when to use this over other preference-related tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.